For m43 and Nikon 1, at the least from where I am sitting, the problem is the price. One would think that savings from the mirror assembly would be reflected on the price. Lenses (m43) that are 1/2 in diameter and 1/8 in volume compared to 135 format should be in theory be significantly cheaper.

I don't think one should think so. The driving cost factor of a lens is more likely to be precision engineering and manufacturing and not so much the weight. Would a good MFT lens require less precision than a good FF lens? It might even require more, since it is smaller and the tolerances might therefor be smaller...

But that is not reflected in practice, is it? At the least I have not seen evidence supporting this theory. I have used a good number of Canikon FF lenses, the only one which I can say is pretty cheaply built (that is still current) is the canon 50 F1.8.